Mass Graves and Eyeglasses
selene1022
"just" cause?:
Huge mass grave found in Iraq
BBC correspondent Barbara Plett says the remains of up to 3,000 people
had been found so far, and the total uncovered could be as many as
15,000.
The grave was found in the small village of al-Mahawil, located near
the city of Hilla, about 56 miles (90 km) south of Baghdad.
Among the remains are thought to be the bodies of political prisoners
killed after a Shia Muslim uprising against Saddam in 1991 but also
entire families.
Relatives are identifying them with their eyeglasses or other
personal effects found among the bodies
BBC correspondents say the stench at the site is unbearable and a
group of US marines who visited said it was like looking into hell.
Human rights groups believe that up to 200,000 people may be buried in
sites across the country.
Search for loved ones
Iraqis dug using a mechanical digger and even their hands to find the
bodies at al-Mahawil, which they painstakingly attempted to identify
from clothing and identity cards on the bodies.
One young man told Reuters news agency he was sure he had found the
remains of his brother because he recognised the shirt he always used
to wear.
One woman clutched a plastic bag of bones she said had belonged to her
husband's best friend, weeping as she waited for her husband's remains
to be found.
"We expect many more here," said local doctor Rafid al-Husseini.
"We are trying to match the remains with the names... provided by
families in the area.
"We found bodies on top of each other. Relatives are identifying them
from their glasses or other personal effects found among the bodies."
Evidence
Rights groups have urged the international community to protect such
sites, saying they are crime scenes containing evidence which may
prove crucial to the prosecution of the remnants of Saddam Hussein's
regime.
However US Marine Major Al Schmidt told the BBC that they had to be
respectful of the Iraqis who had suffered.
"This man [Saddam Hussein] committed a lot of atrocities [but] we are
not going to stand here and disrupt them from their mourning," he
said.
"We're going to come in as best we can and do what's best for these
people."
Graves across Iraq
Families desperate to find loved ones have also been searching plots
at the graveyard in Khan Banisaad, a village 30 km (19 miles)
north-east of the Iraqi capital.
BBC correspondent Anu Anand says that squeezed between the graves of
local villagers are hundreds of plots believed to contain bodies.
In their desperation to give their loved ones a proper burial, the
families are disrupting the remains, destroying evidence that would be
needed for any war crimes trials, our correspondent adds.
Iraqi officials in the southern city of Basra have reported finding
1,000 bodies in a mass grave.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/05/12/85727-ap.html
Associated Press
May 12, 2003
Mass graves discovery brings grief, anger
By TINI TRAN
BASRA, Iraq, May 12 (AP) -- Peering into a simple plywood coffin,
Karima Musa Mohammed carefully looked over the remains inside - a
ragged blindfold tied around the skull, feet bound by black cloth,
faded grey pants, light grey shirt.
"No, not him. Not my son," she pronounced, then burst into tears.
For people streaming past 32 coffins laid out in Basra's al-Jumhuriya
Grand Mosque on Monday, grief competed with anger as they searched
for relatives who disappeared after a Shiite Muslim uprising in 1999.
The remains were dug up from a mass grave on the outskirts of Basra -
one of many being unearthed around the country as Iraqis come to grips
with the reality of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.
Located along a desolate stretch of highway that runs toward
Nasiriyah,
the shallow grave contains as many as 150 bodies that residents began
digging up on Sunday, said Sayed Haider al-Hussein, a mosque official.
The site was discovered after people with the former regime
approached clerics, he said.
"We get new information about (mass graves) every day," al-Hussein
said. "I feel a lot of anger and pain. Saddam has blood on his
hands."
A Shiite Muslim stronghold, Basra was punished during Saddam's era
for fostering insurgencies against his Sunni-dominated rule. Just
after
the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Shiite rebels rose in protest, only to
be
crushed by military forces. Thousands were believed to have been
killed
after the failed revolt.
In March 1999 came a second uprising in Basra, this one following
the execution of a prominent Shiite cleric. During this wave,
thousands
more people were arrested, imprisoned and in some cases executed by
the ruling Baath party.
In the month since Saddam's regime was ousted, information found in
secret police files and documents, as well as tips from witnesses,
have
shed light on Saddam's methods of controlling and terrorizing people.
Along with the tales of torture and imprisonment came reports about
mass graves. The country is dotted with anonymous graves, human-rights
groups contend. Other mass graves have been found in or near Najaf,
Karbala and Baghdad.
The grave site found Sunday contained bodies of those captured after
the 1999 uprising, al-Hussein said.
"They were killed in a very ugly way. Hands tied, feet tied, eyes
blindfolded. They were forced to kneel and then they were shot
in the head," he said.
The skeletal remains on display Monday showed signs of physical
trauma. Some still had faded bandages tied around the eye sockets
and black cloth binding the feet. Several skulls had large holes
on one side or were crushed in the back.
In each open wooden coffin, the bones were carefully wrapped in
white cloth, surrounded by scraps of hair, bits of teeth and bones.
The visible evidence of their demise drove scores of black-clad women
to wailing and men to weep.
"You see this?" a red-eyed Hassan Faleh Mohsin, 56, demanded angrily.
Mohsin had accompanied a friend who was looking for his son who
disappeared off the streets of Basra in 1999. "This is the government
of Saddam Hussein."
A piercing cry broke through the morning heat as one young man
crumpled
before an open box. Friends held up Mo'taz Jassim Al-Aibi, who said he
recognized his brother Mohammed by his faded green sweatpants.
"We have had no word of him for four years - nothing," he said.
By midmorning, 13 bodies had been identified by their families.
However, mosque officials said they expected more would be identified
later. Bodies dug up at the site would continue to be brought to the
mosque, al-Hussein said.
Human-rights workers say the discovery of the mass graves confirms
suspicions about the brutality of Saddam's regime. But they fear
attempts
by citizens to unearth graves on their own will complicate future
efforts
to assemble evidence needed to prosecute members of the former regime.
Over the past 20 years, Amnesty International has collected
information
on around 17,000 disappearances in Iraq, but says the actual figure
may
be much higher.
Saman Zia-Zarifi, a representative with New York-based Human Rights
Watch, said he told American and British officials three weeks ago
about several suspected mass graves but was told they didn't have the
resources to secure the areas.
Zia-Zarifi said he was disappointed coalition forces were failing to
protect evidence that could be used in international war-crimes
tribunals.
"One of the reasons given for attacking Iraq was because of human
rights.
But daily, they are losing the evidence," he said. "As soon as the
shovel
hits the site, it's contaminated. It's impossible to conduct any kind
of
accountability." <end>
JV
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> OK, show of hands. Who STILL thinks the liberation of Iraq was not a
> "just" cause?
You mean they finally found Saddam's arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html
Or was this a different war you were talking about?
Alan.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> OK, show of hands. Who STILL thinks the liberation of Iraq was not a
> "just" cause?:
The people of Iraq have been liberated from electricity, water, working
sewers, schools, hospitals and police.
A big victory for civilization.
Gene Zitver
>> OK, show of hands. Who STILL thinks the liberation of Iraq was not a
>> "just" cause?:
>
>The people of Iraq have been liberated from electricity, water, working
>sewers, schools, hospitals and police.
>
>A big victory for civilization.
Well I don't think these services were so wonderful before the war. But yes,
the US was and is woefully unprepared to deal with these matters, and with a
lot of other things. Despite the claims of Bush and Rumsfeld, overthrowing
Saddam's regime did not "free" Iraq. It only created a condition in which
freedom is possible. Unfortunately a lot of other things are possible too. I'm
quite concerned, now that the main fighting is over, about the administration's
tendency toward complacency and its apparent failure to fully grasp the effort
(and expense) required now.
Gene
Gene Zitver
>Well I don't think these services were so wonderful before the war. But yes,
>the US was and is woefully unprepared to deal with these matters, and with a
>lot of other things. Despite the claims of Bush and Rumsfeld, overthrowing
>Saddam's regime did not "free" Iraq. It only created a condition in which
>freedom is possible. Unfortunately a lot of other things are possible too.
>I'm
>quite concerned, now that the main fighting is over, about the
>administration's
>tendency toward complacency and its apparent failure to fully grasp the
>effort
>(and expense) required now.
Although it seems the Americans are doing better in some parts of Iraq than in
others:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305140332may14,1,70260
49.story
Obviously the US could use some more Gen. Petraeuses on the ground.
Gene
Mark Scruby
place for 10 years without making any real effort to liberate Iraq through genuine diplomatic efforts (and
I don't mean trade sanctions).
-
selene1022
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that
a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of
that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"
Did you see those big trucks they found this week? How large of an
infrastructure do you think it takes to cause the mass death of
thousands of people with biological and chemical weapons?
Oh well, I guess fifteen thousand families sifting through charnel for
bits of recognizable clothing isn't much of a reason for war in some
circles--like the CoE and the Vatican.
JV
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Did you see those big trucks they found this week? How large of an
> infrastructure do you think it takes to cause the mass death of
> thousands of people with biological and chemical weapons?
Could you be a bit more specific about the nature and significance of these
'big trucks' for those of us who weren't hitherto aware of their
groundbreaking importance?
> Oh well, I guess fifteen thousand families sifting through charnel for
> bits of recognizable clothing isn't much of a reason for war in some
> circles--like the CoE and the Vatican.
If Saddam's atrocities had actually *been* the reason for war, legal or
otherwise, then you might be onto something here - although I suppose the
Bush administration would still have to explain why global humanitarianism
seemed so less urgent a priority before September 11. As it is, these
post-facto discoveries have precious little bearing on the original motive
for the invasion, unless you're advancing a novel theory of causality.
Alan.
Mark Scruby
Alan Allport wrote:
> If Saddam's atrocities had actually *been* the reason for war, legal or
> otherwise, then you might be onto something here - although I suppose the
> Bush administration would still have to explain why global humanitarianism
> seemed so less urgent a priority before September 11. As it is, these
> post-facto discoveries have precious little bearing on the original motive
> for the invasion, unless you're advancing a novel theory of causality.
>
> Alan.
I can't agree with you more, Alan.
Mark Scruby
Alan Allport wrote:
Does anyone know what Washington's official stance on Zimbabwe/Mugabe, for
example? When is Operation Freedom hitting africa?
David Tomlin
> OK, show of hands. Who STILL thinks the liberation of Iraq was not a
> "just" cause?:
> Huge mass grave found in Iraq
Did someone claim such graves would not be found?
bayle
"Mark Scruby" <ma...@unibooks.com.au> wrote in message
news:3EC2F517...@unibooks.com.au...
>
> Does anyone know what Washington's official stance on Zimbabwe/Mugabe, for
> example? When is Operation Freedom hitting africa?
>
You really want to see that happen or is it just rhetorical irony?
bayle
"Jan Bojer Vindheim" <go...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:1fuyv3u.1nv9b56l2fcpcN%go...@nomail.net...
You're right. No doubt Iraq has been a people's paradise for the last 20
years. We just all missed it.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <go...@nomail.net> wrote
> > The people of Iraq have been liberated from electricity, water, working
> > sewers, schools, hospitals and police.
> >
> > A big victory for civilization.
>
> You're right. No doubt Iraq has been a people's paradise for the last 20
> years. We just all missed it.
Mr Hussein certainly didnt make Iraq into a paradise by any definition,
anmd like most iraqis I was happy to see him go,
but I do beleive that most Iraqis would have preffered
the US to leave the water on tap.
Mark Scruby
Yeah, so why does 'liberation' have to be achieved with the help of a whole
bunch of Bunker Busters, Black Hawks and Fuck Off Missilesafter years and
years of apathy?
David Tomlin
> Oh well, I guess fifteen thousand families sifting through charnel for
> bits of recognizable clothing isn't much of a reason for war in some
> circles--like the CoE and the Vatican.
I don't know who/what CoE is. I think it is disingenuous, or perhaps
uninformed, to suggest that humanitarian intervention is unpopular
only in limited circles. It is not popular in the U.S. generally,
as shown by Somalia and Rwanda. I don't think it is popular in Europe,
either, given the history of the Bosnia crisis.
Mark Scruby
Church of England, perhaps...
selene1022
Tell me Jan dear. When they finally kicked the Nazis out of Norway,
were all the toilets flushing?
JV
selene1022
The Bush administration needs to do a better job getting it's act
together. Still, is anyone REALLY going to argue that Iraq is worse
off now? Geez, at least the working girls don't have to worry about
getting their heads lopped off by the black shirts. That's a huge step
in the right direction.
JV
selene1022
Earth to Jan...Saddam's thugs cut the water.
JV
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> Tell me Jan dear. When they finally kicked the Nazis out of Norway,
> were all the toilets flushing?
int the north the germans had burnt down most buildings
and destroyed infrastructure -. shows what kind of people they were,
does it not ?
but the allies did not destroy the infrastructure in any part of the
country as an aspect of introducing freedom
Jan Bojer Vindheim
US thugs bombed electricity, water supply and sewage plants
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> The Bush administration needs to do a better job getting it's act
> together. Still, is anyone REALLY going to argue that Iraq is worse
> off now?
What does it mean to say that Iraq is "better off" now? What terms and
timescale are we talking about? It's lost a brutal dictator. On the other
hand, thousands of Iraqis are dead, the national infrastructure has been
wrecked, and there's an absence of clear political authority except for that
imposed by a foreign power with uncertain motives. This is a watershed in
the country's history; post-war Iraq *may* turn out to be an inspiring
success story, but on the other hand it could all get very ugly. If Iraq
dissolves into a kind of Somalia in the next five years, will that have made
it "better off"? This is far too complex and uncertain a question to answer
so glibly.
Alan.
selene1022
> "selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Did you see those big trucks they found this week? How large of an
> > infrastructure do you think it takes to cause the mass death of
> > thousands of people with biological and chemical weapons?
>
> Could you be a bit more specific about the nature and significance of these
> 'big trucks' for those of us who weren't hitherto aware of their
> groundbreaking importance?
>
> > Oh well, I guess fifteen thousand families sifting through charnel for
> > bits of recognizable clothing isn't much of a reason for war in some
> > circles--like the CoE and the Vatican.
>
> If Saddam's atrocities had actually *been* the reason for war, legal or
> otherwise, then you might be onto something here
Umm, excuse me. We're having a little forrest for the trees problem
here. WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT BUSH'S MOTIVES WERE. Not me. I've yet to
see any proof of sinister, conspiratorial motives behind the Bush
administration's Iraq policy. Over twenty million people are now
liberated from a totalitarian regime. I think that's a very good
thing. Be sure and check out David Brooks' essay in the June Atlantic.
He makes great points. (I'll try and link it if I have time.)
- although I suppose the
> Bush administration would still have to explain why global humanitarianism
> seemed so less urgent a priority before September 11. As it is, these
> post-facto discoveries have precious little bearing on the original motive
> for the invasion, unless you're advancing a novel theory of causality.
>
> Alan.
JV
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Umm, excuse me. We're having a little forrest for the trees problem
> here. WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT BUSH'S MOTIVES WERE.
Um, the US electorate, one might hope?
(And hey, what about the big trucks?)
Alan.
Gene Zitver
>US thugs bombed electricity, water supply and sewage plants
Jan, do you have any evidence for this?
Gene
John Rennie
Snip
"WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT BUSH'S MOTIVES WERE. Not me"
I think we can safely say that this phrase will come back to
haunt you.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
not apart from following the news while the attack was happening.
I remember several reports of damage to infrasructure from the
fighting. I am not claiming that water and sewage systems were
deliberately targeted by the the invasion forces, but the electricity
supplies certainly were.
selene1022
Sure he does. The same little fat bald guy who writes all the Penthouse letters.
JV
selene1022
Quite right. BBad things could happen. But you actually think that
with 15% of the world's oil reserve, Iraq is going to devolve into
Somalia?
JV
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Quite right. BBad things could happen. But you actually think that
> with 15% of the world's oil reserve, Iraq is going to devolve into
> Somalia?
A fair point; rather than Somalia, a nasty corporate-run plutocracy is more
likely.
Alan.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> gzi...@aol.com (Gene Zitver) wrote
> > Jan Bojer Vindheim wrote
> >
> > >US thugs bombed electricity, water supply and sewage plants
> >
> > Jan, do you have any evidence for this?
> >
> > Gene
>
> Sure he does.
> The same little fat bald guy who writes all the Penthouse letters.
From the premise that the US invasion - sorry "pre-emptive action" - was
totally benign, it must of course be out of the question to accept that
any nasty side-effects might have occured.
David Tomlin
> Jan Bojer Vindheim wrote
> >US thugs bombed electricity, water supply and sewage plants
> Jan, do you have any evidence for this?
Jan's claim needs evidence, but Selene's doesn't?
I recall reading an article, about Basra specifically, which said
that the cause of the water system failure was undetermined. Both
coalition bombing and Iraqi sabotage were suggested as possibilities.
If there is some evidence resolving such questions conclusively, I
would like to know about it.
Gene Zitver
>not apart from following the news while the attack was happening.
>I remember several reports of damage to infrasructure from the
>fighting. I am not claiming that water and sewage systems were
>deliberately targeted by the the invasion forces, but the electricity
>supplies certainly were.
All kinds of news was reported during the war, much of which turned out to be
inaccurate. Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
Gene
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> All kinds of news was reported during the war, much of which turned out to be
> inaccurate. Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
The overwhelming part of the bombing was done by the attacking forces,
is it not reasonable to beleive that the damage was caused by the
attack?
what other explanation do you have to offer ?
Gene Zitver
Well I was mostly disputing your use of the phrase "deliberately targeted" in
connection with the electrical system. And yes, it's possible that some of the
infrastructure was accidentally damaged in US/UK attacks. But that certainly
isn't the problem now.
I think more more likely suspects are Iraqis who have looted or sabotaged
equipment.
FWIW this is from Friday's Washington Post:
"Jim Lanier, who works with Bremer's team, said later that he believes Hussein
loyalists have purposely taken action that 'just keeps things in a state of
confusion.'"
"Lanier, a U.S. Agency for International Development staff member who is
overseeing the reconstruction of Iraq's balky electrical grid, identified a
section of power line between Baghdad and the southern city of Basra that had
been shot apart in the same place six times. Each time, crews have made
repairs, only to find the line destroyed again.
"'That's not accidental,' said Lanier, who reported gunfights at a nearby oil
refinery and word from U.S. soldiers guarding the Al Quds power plant northwest
of Baghdad that they are fired upon regularly. 'I think it's far more than just
random. There are those who see it as an opportunity to make the coalition look
weak, to keep society stirred up.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61546-2003May15.html
Gene
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> Jan Bojer Vindheim wrote
> >what other explanation do you have to offer ?
>
> Well I was mostly disputing your use of the phrase "deliberately targeted" in
> connection with the electrical system.
I definitely believe the US army aimed at knocking out the electrical
system in Baghdad
> And yes, it's possible that some of the infrastructure was accidentally
> damaged in US/UK attacks. But that certainly isn't the problem now.
And I certainly believe that most of the damage to the infrastructure
was caused by the attacking military forces.
Anyway- the total amount of damage comes as a result of the military
attack.
selene1022
Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
month before they answer. Things are chaotic now, and I will admit
that the Bush administration could do a lot more, but what should we
expect? Perfection in a month? We're dealing with a poverty ridden
population of over 20 million that have only know a police state for
more than 30 years. Read your Hannah Arendt. If "we" really care about
principles like human rights, rule of law and democracy...maybe "we"
should stop wasting time bitching about Bush on the internet and find
small ways to help promote these goals in Iraq.
JV
Jan Bojer Vindheim
>
> Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
> hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
> says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
> month before they answer. Things are chaotic now, and I will admit
> that the Bush administration could do a lot more, but what should we
> expect? Perfection in a month? We're dealing with a poverty ridden
> population of over 20 million that have only know a police state for
> more than 30 years. Read your Hannah Arendt.
My Iraqi friends are all happy that the big man faded away.
But none of them are happy about the mess the Americans have created
> If "we" really care about
> principles like human rights, rule of law and democracy...maybe "we"
> should stop wasting time bitching about Bush on the internet and find
> small ways to help promote these goals in Iraq.
You started this thread, didn´t you ?
David Tomlin
> Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
> hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
> says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
> month before they answer.
People on your side don't need to suffer any hardship before they
are entitled to express an opinion?
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
> hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
> says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
> month before they answer. Things are chaotic now, and I will admit
> that the Bush administration could do a lot more, but what should we
> expect? Perfection in a month? We're dealing with a poverty ridden
> population of over 20 million that have only know a police state for
> more than 30 years. Read your Hannah Arendt. If "we" really care about
> principles like human rights, rule of law and democracy...maybe "we"
> should stop wasting time bitching about Bush on the internet and find
> small ways to help promote these goals in Iraq.
I'm not quite sure if I understand the argument here - Bush "could be doing
a lot more", but if we start pointing out these inadequacies then we're just
"wasting time" (unlike the hawks, who are presumably down at the blood bank
every other day dispatching plasma to Basra)?
Alan.
Alan Allport
news:f8576779.03051...@posting.google.com...
Perhaps anyone who says the war was worth it should be carpet-bombed for a
month before they answer ...
Alan.
Reg Bentley
<selen...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
>hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
>says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
>month before they answer.
And anybody who says they *were*, should have their entire family
crushed to death beneath their bombed-out house, or die in an epidemic
of water-borne diseases caused by destruction of water treatment
infrastructure, before *they* answer?
Devastating logic. You make it appear as if the sufferings of the Iraqi
people are, to you, just a convenient pretext for the exercise of US
military might, as they undoubtably are to your government. But that
can't be true, can it?
Reg
selene1022
There's a difference between wishing for more bureaucratic efficency,
security etc., and saying that the war was not worth it in the first
place A.(Am I not reading something right?) I tried to find the Brooks
article on line, but couldn't. If you get a copy of the June Atlantic,
I think he does a good job of summing up what we're dealing with.
JV
Alan Allport
news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
> There's a difference between wishing for more bureaucratic efficency,
> security etc., and saying that the war was not worth it in the first
> place A.(Am I not reading something right?)
I guess not. Weren't you the one who restarted the "anyone who doesn't
believe the war was right is a moron" shtick again, thus begetting all this
loathsome timewasting in the first place?
Alan.
Martha Bridegam
Alan Allport wrote:
There's a thoughtful article in the Guardian on Ann Coulter and what her
popularity has to say about American political thinking.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,957670,00.html>
"....The Coulter phenomenon is about more than just her: it's rooted in a
clutch of current trends in American life, some of which are only just dawning
on outsiders. Whether it's America's shift to the right or the rise and rise
of America's motor-mouth, talk-show culture, or the popular rebellion against
establishment media or the emergence of a new Republican babe-ocracy, Ann
Coulter represents it all.
Especially the coarsening of the public conversation, say her liberal
accusers...."
"...More importantly, Coulter's success represents a feature of US life that
separates it starkly from most countries, including Britain. She benefits
from, and is now a star player in, a polemical culture that has made political
argument a mass activity. Scan the top-selling books in Britain and it's all
gardening and cookery. Look at what America's buying and it's non-fiction
books of argument. Every new Bob Woodward tome on the US government becomes a
smash hit, while slash-and-burn polemic - whether it's Coulter on the right or
Michael Moore on the left - sells by the crateload. Maybe it's to compensate
for the cautious style of US newspapers or the bland, neutered language of
mainstream US politicians. A gap has opened in American political culture and
motor-mouths like Ann Coulter are filling it. ..."
We hardly talk about Orwell here any more, but perhaps we could ask what on
earth he'd think of the insult-trading that passes for political conversation
on U.S. talk shows and often enough on Usenet too.
Unfortunately, when political discourse becomes ugly, angry, and polarized, it
makes decent people get tired and retreat into their personal lives, and that
leaves openings for nasty extremists who have previously been regarded as
comic figures.
It's hard to write forcefully without being coarse. Orwell made an interesting
compromise there by switching between refined and coarse speech to give a
varied texture to his work, like silk interwoven with burlap.
E.g. this from "Inside The Whale":
"...It will be seen what this amounts to. It is a species of quietism,
implying either complete unbelief or else a degree of belief amounting to
mysticism. The attitude is 'Je m'en fous' or 'Though He slay me, yet will I
trust in Him,' whichever way you like to look at it; for practical purposes
both are identical, the moral in either case being 'Sit on your bum.' But in a
time like ours, is this a defensible attitude?..."
From polite lecturer to French lout to vicar to English lout and back to
lecturer, all in a few breaths.
Something different and more interesting going on there than in the response
to Obadiah H. -- and even Orwell baiting Alex Comfort under the
nerve-splitting pressure of the Blitz is a model of civilized discourse next
to the dishonest bullhockey that's becoming normal from people like Coulter
and Andrew Sullivan on one side, and people like James Carville and Michael
Moore on another side.
Finding a clean corner is getting harder and harder.
/M
selene1022
A)Not exactly Dresden we're talking about honey. Civilian casualties
were kept at a minimum.
B)Are you saying children didn't die from malnutrition and "water
bourne' illness under Saddam? Oh PLEEEEEZE.
C)Do you think it's going to take forever to get the infrastructure
restored? 15% of the worlds oil reserves, remember? Only at least now
the people of Iraq have some hope that it will go towards their well
being instead of into the pockets of UN bureaus and down Saddam's gold
plated toilets.
Tell you what Reg...why don't you go take a poll in Iraq and ask who
wants Saddam back.
JV
bayle
"Jan Bojer Vindheim" <go...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:1fv4205.of5pjt1i2j7waN%go...@nomail.net...
> Gene Zitver <gzi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Jan Bojer Vindheim wrote
>
> > >what other explanation do you have to offer ?
> >
> > Well I was mostly disputing your use of the phrase "deliberately
targeted" in
> > connection with the electrical system.
>
> I definitely believe the US army aimed at knocking out the electrical
> system in Baghdad
>
Knocking out the electrical system, is different than destroying the
electrical system. If the US had wanted to destroy the electrical system,
their would be practically no electricity in Iraq for a very long time.
I don't know whether they used some of the same waepons they used in Kosovo
and Serbia which temporarily shorted out the system until the chaff was
cleaned up.
> > And yes, it's possible that some of the infrastructure was accidentally
> > damaged in US/UK attacks. But that certainly isn't the problem now.
>
> And I certainly believe that most of the damage to the infrastructure
> was caused by the attacking military forces.
>
> Anyway- the total amount of damage comes as a result of the military
> attack.
It would be nice to know what kind of infrastructure Iraq had pre-war. I
doubt it was very good. I get tired of hearing all this reporting as if,
say, the hospitals of Baghdad were ever state of the art institutions, able
to save premature babies as if they were born in Paris or New York. Would
you like to tell us how much of the blame you place on Saddam Hussein, or do
you prefer to continue with your romantic view of the Middle East?
bayle
> My Iraqi friends are all happy that the big man faded away.
> But none of them are happy about the mess the Americans have created
Perhaps you can inform your Iraqi friends that they, yes they themselves,
created the mess. And the sooner they accept repsonsibility for their own
actions, the quicker they will be able to live in the modern world, in a
modern state with human rights and freedom, modern health care, education,
etc. The day of the Arab as the poor victim is over.
But of course, left to their own devices, the Iraqis would no doubt create
utopia, and not 1984 like the rest of their brothers live in.
Sure they would Jan.
One thing is sure though. If the crazies try to hijack the building of the
new Iraq, backed by their leftwing anti-American friends in Europe and the
UN, Iraq is no more.
Can you say "Kurdish Republic"?
bayle
It didn't take that long did it?
bayle
And your comments are those of a faith healer whining about the blood and
pain when a cardiothoracic surgeon cracks someone's chest to do open heart
surgery?
Truth is you and your buddies were against the war and are still against the
war, but have remerged from whining, while the rest of us (including
Schroeder it seems) have decided to move on and wait and see how things turn
out.
The reason your arguments are irrelevant to anyone who isn't already on
your side is that your responses are totally predictable and in Allport's
case examples of his usual myopic logical nit-picking.
What you should be doing is attempting to think about how to build the kind
of world where the Mugabes and the Husseins are dealt with before they
terrorize and kill hundreds of thousands of their own people under the
protection of sovereignty and the UN. The kind of world that Orwell went to
Spain to build.
The war is over. You lost, deal with it ;-)
***
Stay tuned. The wonderful representatives of the third world and Islam, the
Indonesians, are getting ready to massacre thousands of their own people in
the near future. It will be interesting to see where you and your friends,
paragons of morality, stand on the use of Australian and US power then.
bayle
"Mark Scruby" <ma...@unibooks.com.au> wrote in message
news:3EC42E62...@unibooks.com.au...> > news:1fuyv3u.1nv9b56l2fcpcN%go...@nomail.net...
> > > selene1022 <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, show of hands. Who STILL thinks the liberation of Iraq was not a
> > > > "just" cause?:
> > >
> > > The people of Iraq have been liberated from electricity, water,
working
> > > sewers, schools, hospitals and police.
> > >
> > > A big victory for civilization.
> >
> > You're right. No doubt Iraq has been a people's paradise for the last 20
> > years. We just all missed it.
>
> Yeah, so why does 'liberation' have to be achieved with the help of a
whole
> bunch of Bunker Busters, Black Hawks and Fuck Off Missilesafter years and
> years of apathy?
>
LOL. Sorry. Did you want to volunteer to go there and liberate them with
non-violent civil disobedience? Of course even the peace marchers went on
rampages in Sydney..
And then there's this wonderful example from the anti-war party in
Australia. The civil war on the left has begun.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/17/1052885447755.html
Punches thrown at ALP conference
May 18 2003
Punches were thrown at the Victorian Labor Party state conference yesterday
when factional tensions sparked a wild brawl.
Up to 40 delegates were involved in the melee over voting procedures during
the two-day conference at Melbourne Town Hall.
What began as a scuffle between members of the Left and Right factions
descended into mayhem with delegates, including several women, running to
join in.
The stoush lasted several minutes until party heavyweights restored order.
Cries of "you're a f***ing grub" and "you scum" were heard during the
incident, which followed a vote on party reform.
bayle
> > together. Still, is anyone REALLY going to argue that Iraq is worse
> > off now?
>
> What does it mean to say that Iraq is "better off" now? What terms and
> timescale are we talking about? It's lost a brutal dictator. On the other
> hand, thousands of Iraqis are dead, the national infrastructure has been
> wrecked, and there's an absence of clear political authority except for
that
> imposed by a foreign power with uncertain motives. This is a watershed in
> the country's history; post-war Iraq *may* turn out to be an inspiring
> success story, but on the other hand it could all get very ugly. If Iraq
> dissolves into a kind of Somalia in the next five years, will that have
made
> it "better off"? This is far too complex and uncertain a question to
answer
> so glibly.
>
> Alan.
>
You need a dose of Maggie.
"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated
about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the
worst of those who defend it." Margaret Thatcher
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-681123,00.html
Lady Thatcher said: "For years, many governments played down the threats of
Islamic revolution, turned a blind eye to international terrorism and
accepted the development of weaponry of mass destruction. Indeed, some
politicians were happy to go further, collaborating with the self-proclaimed
enemies of the West for their own short-term gain - but enough about the
French. So deep had the rot set in that the UN security council itself was
paralysed."
She spoke of her pride at the way Britain stood by America over Iraq: "Our
own Prime Minister was staunch and our forces were superb. But, above, all,
it is President Bush who deserves the credit for victory."
Lady Thatcher said that she had "drunk deep from the same well of ideas" as
her great ally, the former US President Ronald Reagan. Both instinctively
knew what worked, she said, including low taxes, small government and
enterprise. "We knew, too, what did not work, namely socialism in every
shape or form. Nowadays socialism is more often dressed up as
environmentalism, feminism, or international concern for human rights. All
sound good in the abstract.
"But scratch the surface and you will as likely as not discover
anti-capitalism, patronising and distorting quotas, and intrusions upon the
sovereignty and democracy of nations."
Lady Thatcher warned that America and Britain faced "a pervasive culture of
anti-Westernism" that needed to be challenged. "There are too many people
who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the
best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."
David Tomlin
> Are you saying children didn't die from malnutrition and "water
> bourne' illness under Saddam? Oh PLEEEEEZE.
Child mortality in Iraq was declining before sanctions were
imposed.
> Do you think it's going to take forever to get the infrastructure
> restored? 15% of the worlds oil reserves, remember? Only at least now
> the people of Iraq have some hope that it will go towards their well
> being instead of into the pockets of UN bureaus and down Saddam's gold
> plated toilets.
Last I heard, most of the international aid going to Afghanistan was
finding its way to the Swiss bank accounts of warlords and their
cronies. I don't see any evidence that U.S. nation-building is any
less corrupt than the UN variety.
Saddam actually invested proportionately more in his country's
infrastructure than the Saudis and the Gulf monarchs. Before
Gulf War 1 Iraq was one of the most prosperous socities in the
Middle East. That was partly because Saddam was able to pay
for the Iran war with Western aid and loans.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <go...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > And I certainly believe that most of the damage to the infrastructure
> > was caused by the attacking military forces.
> >
> > Anyway- the total amount of damage comes as a result of the military
> > attack.
>
> It would be nice to know what kind of infrastructure Iraq had pre-war. I
> doubt it was very good. I get tired of hearing all this reporting as if,
> say, the hospitals of Baghdad were ever state of the art institutions, able
> to save premature babies as if they were born in Paris or New York. Would
> you like to tell us how much of the blame you place on Saddam Hussein, or do
> you prefer to continue with your romantic view of the Middle East?
As the most "western" of the Arab states Iraq has had a large proprtion
of well educated people - including doctors of both sexes, and well
equipped hospitals.
The standards went down during the blockade years, but the american
attack has degraded physical infrastructure, including schools and
hospitals dramatically.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <go...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:1fv49ij.12c6em619ierjdN%go...@nomail.net...
>
> > My Iraqi friends are all happy that the big man faded away.
> > But none of them are happy about the mess the Americans have created
>
> Perhaps you can inform your Iraqi friends that they, yes they themselves,
> created the mess.
yeah, from exile.
> And the sooner they accept repsonsibility for their own
> actions, the quicker they will be able to live in the modern world, in a
> modern state with human rights and freedom, modern health care, education,
> etc. The day of the Arab as the poor victim is over.
Apart from your patronizing attitude, your concept of the "modern" seems
wanting.
>
> But of course, left to their own devices, the Iraqis would no doubt create
> utopia, and not 1984 like the rest of their brothers live in.
oh, come off it.
> One thing is sure though. If the crazies try to hijack the building of the
> new Iraq, backed by their leftwing anti-American friends in Europe and the
> UN, Iraq is no more.
Oh yes, if the Iraqis should try to decide on something that conflicts
with the occupant plans - we can't have that.
>
> Can you say "Kurdish Republic"?
Sure I have been celebring newroz with Iraqi Kurds for the last fifteeen
years.
can you say: America is just one country, among many ?
David Tomlin
> It would be nice to know what kind of infrastructure Iraq had pre-war. I
> doubt it was very good.
It was good before Gulf War 1.
selene1022
Hmm. Define "clean corner" Martha.
JV
Martha Bridegam
selene1022 wrote:
Probably difficult, yes.
Somewhere you can have a conversation that's genuinely about the subject under discussion?
/M
jmc
"bayle" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:iiExa.37032$1s1.5...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> Lady Thatcher said that she had "drunk deep from the same well of ideas"
as
> her great ally, the former US President Ronald Reagan. Both instinctively
> knew what worked, she said, including low taxes, small government and
> enterprise. "We knew, too, what did not work, namely socialism in every
> shape or form. Nowadays socialism is more often dressed up as
> environmentalism, feminism, or international concern for human rights. All
> sound good in the abstract.
>
> "But scratch the surface and you will as likely as not discover
> anti-capitalism, patronising and distorting quotas, and intrusions upon
the
> sovereignty and democracy of nations."
>
An arch bullshitter and I wonder whether she really believes this crap
(unlikely) or whether she is steeped in cynicism and contempt (likely). As
to "knowing what works" I wonder if she could tell us who she thinks the
things she mentions work for? Certainly her husband and his
multi-millionaire cronies but unfortunately not for a pensioner stuck in
debt on a sink estate etc.
No one did more to sell-out British sovereignty to the US (before Blair that
is) and destroy democracy. She happily gave as much power as possible to
unelected corporate interests. She was also an advocate of very strong,
centralised government, an arch propagandist who patronised and distorted
quotas as much as any leftist demagogue. The mention of "an international
concern for human rights" as a dressed up form of socialism is the giveaway.
What she is saying, quite boldly, is that a world without torture and
poverty is not to be actively pursued but rather these things are to be
encouraged as a way of reinforcing the power of her class. Make no mistake
about her agenda, for God's sake.
> Lady Thatcher warned that America and Britain faced "a pervasive culture
of
> anti-Westernism" that needed to be challenged. "There are too many people
> who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing
the
> best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend
it."
>
Depends, really, on what your country means to you. Thatcher is by no means
a "one nation" politician - the world and interests she protects are not the
world the majority live in. Thatcher hates the vast majority of English
people and uses them only so far as it serves her class's agenda. She makes
the deliberate mistake of equating a country with the hegemony which runs
it. Thatcher is a dangerous enemy of the UK and the West in general.
jmc
>
>
> Perhaps you can inform your Iraqi friends that they, yes they themselves,
> created the mess. And the sooner they accept repsonsibility for their own
> actions, the quicker they will be able to live in the modern world, in a
> modern state with human rights and freedom, modern health care, education,
> etc. The day of the Arab as the poor victim is over.
>
Oh bayle - do you not see the contradiction? You advocated the war as a way
of freeing the Iraqi people and now you say that they are not "poor victims"
and should fend for themselves without Western help. The question is - are
you a fool or a knave?
jmc
that
> separates it starkly from most countries, including Britain. She benefits
> from, and is now a star player in, a polemical culture that has made
political
> argument a mass activity. Scan the top-selling books in Britain and it's
all
> gardening and cookery.
Bullshit - Michael Moore, Naomi Kelin have been huge sellers in the UK.
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
Thanks. Had wondered about that.
But does the UK have invective talk shows?
/M
jmc
"Martha Bridegam" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EC81570...@pacbell.net...
>
>
.
> >
> > Bullshit - Michael Moore, Naomi Kelin have been huge sellers in the UK.
>
> Thanks. Had wondered about that.
>
> But does the UK have invective talk shows?
>
What exactly do you mean by the phrase?
Martha Bridegam
jmc wrote:
Things like Limbaugh, where the host gives the show emotional intensity by
inviting like-thinking supporters ("dittoheads" in Limbaugh's case) to join
him in baiting and insulting their political opponents.
/M
Gene Zitver
>There's a thoughtful article in the Guardian on Ann Coulter and what her
>popularity has to say about American political thinking.
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,957670,00.html>
I think Freedland hugely exaggerates the popularity and influence of Coulter,
although she's certainly a symptomatic figure of the times.
>We hardly talk about Orwell here any more, but perhaps we could ask what on
>earth he'd think of the insult-trading that passes for political conversation
>on U.S. talk shows and often enough on Usenet too.
He wouldn't like it, of course. But the more history I read, the more I realize
that invective and name-calling have always been a significant part of American
politics. I have yet to come across a golden age of political civility.
But I think GO would have been troubled by the success of conservatives in
selling the "liberal elites versus the rest of us" message, of which Coulter is
one of a long line of purveyors. I think Orwell sensed the problem even in his
day; thus his frequent complaints about left-wing intellectuals sneering at the
patriotism of ordinary people and his now-comical despair over socialist
fruit-juice drinkers.
I think George Packer, in his book _Blood of the Liberals_, offers a good
Orwellesque take on the failure of liberalism since the 1960s-- a failure which
people like Coulter find so easy to exploit. Packer is the liberal son of
liberal parents, and grew up in the liberal community of Stanford, California.
His grandfather on his mother's side was a populist congressman from
Birmingham, Alabama, and his father was a teacher and administrator at Stanford
University. I'm not sure I agree with all of what he wrote, but to me a lot of
it has the ring of unpleasant truth. He's worth quoting at length:
<begin> By the early 1970s, liberalism could claim to have secured a great many
of the best things in American life: the eight-hour day, the end of child
labor; widespread distribution of prosperity as a result of the post-war social
contract among government, business, and labor; federal programs that had
drastically reduced poverty in old age and broadened access to education; civil
and political rights for blacks and women; greater social equality. Without
liberalism, America would have been a much harsher country, less equal and less
free.
But by the time I was growing up, liberalism seemed to have achieved what it
could and stopped being a vital force for reform. It was becoming a set of
fixed positions that went along with a certain way of life peculiar to a narrow
social class. I reached none of my political beliefs on my own and was
hard-pressed to justify them if challenged. And in Stanford they seldom were
challenged.
But every now and then some dissatisfaction would nag at me, a sense that our
worldview might be vulnerable, a whiff of hypocrisy or contradiction. Once,
during the Boston busing crisis (of course we were for busing; there was only a
crisis because there were racists), I asked my mother whether she would allow
me to be bused from my relatively good junior high school into one of the
weaker ones. Probably not, she said-but education meant more to us than to
people in South Boston. I choked on this explanation, and perhaps secretly she
choked on it, too. One of the liberal ideas had run up against a personal
prejudice, leaving scrapes on both-but the idea survived. I had uncovered a
serious weakness in our position, yet I went on holding the position. It was
too abstract, too untested, to be altered by a collision with reality.
… All the economic trends of the past two decades-- the decline of American
manufacturing under pressure from foreign imports, the growing inequality in
wealth, the contraction of the middle class, the narrowing of opportunity--
began in 1973. After an age in which the vast majority benefited from economic
growth, the country was entering a new age of class division, not unlike the
period of my grandfather's political career-and yet no class politics arose to
meet it, no Populism or Progressivism or New Dealism. Unions were too fat and
corrupt to bestir themselves. Liberals and conservatives went on fighting the
cultural wars of the 1960s for decades.
By 1973 the kind of Americans my grandfather had once visited in their
villages, broken bread with at their kitchen tables, and championed on the
floor of Congress-working men who wanted fair treatment from business and
government-had become the kind of Americans my family knew nothing about. They
were "middle Americans," "white ethnics," "Democrats for Nixon," and quietly we
feared and despised them, and knew that they hated us. They did not look like
the oppressed miners and steelworkers of old Birmingham. They looked like
Archie Bunker. They owned two American-made cars and had bad taste. They were
probably racist. Their sons were the kids who sometimes jumped me while I was
biking through their part of town to junior high (the students at my elementary
school, a five-minute bike ride from our house, had been almost all Stanford
kids). They seemed unlikely liberal allies-- and what's more, liberals no
longer spoke their language or knew how to reach them…
Busing, welfare, taxes, affirmative action, crime patriotism-the majority
turned against the liberal position on all the most controversial and divisive
issues of the period. The decade of the 1970s was one long preparation for
Reagan, the signs of conservative revival were everywhere, but even by 1978,
when California's Proposition 13 passed in a landslide the year I graduated
from high school, ushering in the national tax revolt, I still didn't see it.
…[Liberalism] was becoming known as the creed of the weak, the soft, the
guilt-ridden, the hyperintellectual, the privileged, the out-of-touch, the
hypocritical-- all those who don't want to see the world as it really is.
By 1989 American liberalism was in no condition to raise any new idols. It had
never been a visionary creed, always most successful-in Progressivism, in the
New Deal, in the civil rights movement-when its ideals made practical
accommodations with American life. But by 1989 liberalism had become both
rigidly, almost theologically abstract and hopelessly compromised. It had two
faces: the pious frown of a sensitivity-training consultant scolding a roomful
of university officials and the slack grin of a Democratic congressman having
drinks with a lobbyist…
The reigning left-wing ideology of the past two decades has been the identity
movements-- black, Hispanic, female, gay deaf, and others-- that fall under the
term "multiculturalism." But beyond wishing them success in their struggles to
find a place in the sun, there's not much an outsider can do to belong
meaningfully. The point of identity politics is that other people *don't*
belong. As these movements increasingly obsessed over "difference," elevating
particularities of birth to a quasi-mystical status that determines political
and all other choices, they rejected the ideas of universal humanism that have
underlain liberal politics since the eighteenth century. This in turn made it
impossible to win over a majority of Americans to any unifying program.
"Diversity" as a hardened dogma (rather than a justified struggle for equality,
which was how it began during the civil rights years) gave us the spectacle of
full-scale war over English department hirings and a fragmented, unstable
Democratic Party: on the whole, not a very promising direction for a political
movement to take. And as mainstream liberals embraced diversity and abandoned
their historic claim to speak for mankind against the privileged few, the claim
fell into the hands of conservatives. Liberals used terms like "group interest"
and "decentered knowledge"; conservatives spoke of reason, virtue, freedom, and
responsibility, when what they really meant was "tough luck."
When the Reagan revolution was at high tide, it seemed like a total repudiation
of the 1960s. Reagan himself and his conservative movement blamed everything
from the national debt to infanticide on the liberal attempt to engineer
equality and the youthful philosophy of do what you will. Too much government
and too much counterculture: this was the two-pronged conservative attack, and
it proved enormously successful, signaling the beginning of the end for the
postwar welfare state and its social contract between government, business and
labor.
But today we can see that the country only bought half of it. Cut my taxes,
fine. Deregulate business, let the airline price wars bloom, chip away at the
welfare state, no more handouts. But I want the right to abortion, divorce,
sexual experimentation, trashy music and movies-- private happiness on my own
terms. No one's going to tell me what I can and can't do with my own time.
Freedom is the bottom line in America: freedom to earn, freedom to spend,
freedom to start a new life. There was no total repudiation after all. It
turned out that the 1980s completed what the 1960s began-- the economic half of
Reagan's revolution was continuous with the cultural half of the '60s
revolution. They were both about freedom, and they both won, and we're living
with the consequences. <end>
Gene
bayle
>
> can you say: America is just one country, among many ?
Did I hear you singing "It's a small world" or was it "I'd like to buy the
world a Coke"?
We are all equal, one big happy family. Everyone's opinion valuable,
everyone's the same. Saddam, Muammar and Nelson, Yasser, Mugabe and Assad,
Blair, Bush and Howard. Not to mention Jacque, Gerhard and Vladimir.
Sure we are Jan ;-)
bayle
Of course.
In Sydney, one of the most liberal cities in the world, which likes to think
of itself as the San Francisco of Asia, Pilger and Moore and Chomsky and all
the left wing crazies are in all the bookstores, big displays, best sellers.
The Sydney-siders love to trash the US. They eat it up. Even the children of
holocaust survivors tell you about the moral equivalence between the sides
in the Second World War.
But then guess what? The most popular talk show is an Aussie Rush Limbaugh.
The voters return leaders with balls, Howard and Carr (who's Labor - but no
bs). The left is in tatters here. The average voter can smell their
weakness. They have no platform, no answer to terrorism, no answer to evil,
no backbone. Just like everywhere else.
Terror increases. The world is in chaos. Oh gee, think I'll vote for a
spineless leftie. Sure. In your dreams.
***
Stay tuned for another Third World Nightmare. I plead guilty in the East
Timor situation. I had and have no real understanding of what took place.
But it seems like it's going to happen again. It will be interesting to see
how our pacifist left-wing logic chopping friends respond. You know, all the
ones so worried about every false move the US has made in post-war Iraq
while trying to help the Iraq people. The ones who pontificate about why
this thug, why not the other one. Here's your chance.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6456141%255E27
03,00.html
ELEVENTH-HOUR talks to avert war in Indonesia's restive Aceh province
continued in Tokyo last night but Indonesia's list of demands were expected
to foil the peace negotiations.
....
Despite the urgings of US President George W. Bush and UN secretary-general
Kofi Annan, Indonesia has increased its troops in the province to 45,000, in
preparation for what could be Jakarta's biggest military operation since the
1975 invasion of East Timor.
Reg Bentley
<jamesmart...@hotmail.com> writes
Yeah, a friend of murderer and torturer Pinochet, who stopped wounded
veterans from marching in the Falkands victory parade, lest they spoil
the mood of celebration... Tells you everything you need to know about
"Lady Thatcher". A dreadful, dreadful woman.
Reg
"I say, do you mind awfully just falling in"
Sergeant Wilson out of "Dads Army".
Reg Bentley
<selen...@yahoo.com> writes
>Reg Bentley <r...@EGGNSPAMbrethil.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:<4FehoNA5...@ntlworld.com>...
>> In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>, selene1022
>> <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >
>> >Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
>> >hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
>> >says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
>> >month before they answer.
>>
>> And anybody who says they *were*, should have their entire family
>> crushed to death beneath their bombed-out house, or die in an epidemic
>> of water-borne diseases caused by destruction of water treatment
>> infrastructure, before *they* answer?
>> Devastating logic. You make it appear as if the sufferings of the Iraqi
>> people are, to you, just a convenient pretext for the exercise of US
>> military might, as they undoubtably are to your government. But that
>> can't be true, can it?
>>
>>
>> Reg
>
>A)Not exactly Dresden we're talking about honey. Civilian casualties
>were kept at a minimum.
Easy for you to say.
>
>B)Are you saying children didn't die from malnutrition and "water
>bourne' illness under Saddam? Oh PLEEEEEZE.
Before the war, they had a functioning power generation, sewerage and
water distribution system. Now they don't, the situation is consequently
a lot worse.
>
>C)Do you think it's going to take forever to get the infrastructure
>restored? 15% of the worlds oil reserves, remember? Only at least now
>the people of Iraq have some hope that it will go towards their well
>being instead of into the pockets of UN bureaus and down Saddam's gold
>plated toilets.
I hope you're right. But that wasn't my point.
>
>
>Tell you what Reg...why don't you go take a poll in Iraq and ask who
>wants Saddam back.
I never claimed or believed, as you appear to, that this horrible
situation is black and white. Your glib dismissals of any suffering that
might have been caused by the war is so revealing.
You implied that unless you had lived under Saddam's regime, you
couldn't question the costs/benefits of this war. I was merely pointing
out that that works both ways. By your logic, unless your child has died
of dysentery, you also cannot have an opinion about the justice of the
invasion.
Death from diarrhoea and dehydration is slow and, for the person
concerned and in the absence of modern medicine, indistinguishable from
torture. Tens of thousands of children died in this way after Gulf War 1
when Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed.
These were entirely predictable outcomes of deliberate actions taken.
The world is not black and white, it is grey, and thats why I find that
yours and Bayle's "good vs evil" shtick makes me uncomfortble.
(And before you start, that doesn't mean that I think that Saddam is the
same as Blair or Bush)
Reg Bentley
<nob...@nowhere.com> writes
>
>"Reg Bentley" <r...@EGGNSPAMbrethil.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:4FehoNA5...@ntlworld.com...
>> In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>, selene1022
>> <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
>> >
>> >Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
>> >hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
>> >says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
>> >month before they answer.
>>
>> And anybody who says they *were*, should have their entire family
>> crushed to death beneath their bombed-out house, or die in an epidemic
>> of water-borne diseases caused by destruction of water treatment
>> infrastructure, before *they* answer?
>> Devastating logic. You make it appear as if the sufferings of the Iraqi
>> people are, to you, just a convenient pretext for the exercise of US
>> military might, as they undoubtably are to your government. But that
>> can't be true, can it?
>>
>>
>> Reg
>>
>
>And your comments are those of a faith healer whining about the blood and
>pain when a cardiothoracic surgeon cracks someone's chest to do open heart
>surgery?
Rubbish analogy.
>
>Truth is you and your buddies were against the war and are still against the
>war, but have remerged from whining, while the rest of us (including
>Schroeder it seems) have decided to move on and wait and see how things turn
>out.
>
>The reason your arguments are irrelevant to anyone who isn't already on
>your side is that your responses are totally predictable and in Allport's
>case examples of his usual myopic logical nit-picking.
Predictable = irrelevant?
>
>What you should be doing is attempting to think about how to build the kind
>of world where the Mugabes and the Husseins are dealt with before they
>terrorize and kill hundreds of thousands of their own people under the
>protection of sovereignty and the UN.
I believe that, as a long standing and active member of Amnesty,
I have been trying to do that in a very small way.
Do you believe that Bush and Rumsfeld really give a monkeys about
Zimbabweans and Indonesians?
> The kind of world that Orwell went to
>Spain to build.
>
>The war is over. You lost, deal with it ;-)
This comment speaks volumes, even wiv da smiley.
As does your admiring quotation of Thatcher, in which she dismisses a
concern for human rights as a manifestation of "socialism" that is to be
despised.
>***
>
>Stay tuned. The wonderful representatives of the third world and Islam, the
>Indonesians, are getting ready to massacre thousands of their own people in
>the near future. It will be interesting to see where you and your friends,
>paragons of morality, stand on the use of Australian and US power then.
Both you and I know that, unless the US perceives vital strategic
interests to be at stake in that region, they will do nothing, since
"human rights" was not the motivating factor in Iraq, but merely
convenient for PR.
Why isn't the Seventh Fleet sitting off Point Noire?
selene1022
> In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>, selene1022
> <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
> >Reg Bentley <r...@EGGNSPAMbrethil.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >news:<4FehoNA5...@ntlworld.com>...
> >> In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>, selene1022
> >> <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
> >> >
> The world is not black and white, it is grey, and thats why I find that
> yours and Bayle's "good vs evil" shtick makes me uncomfortble.
>
>
Good.
JV
Mark Scruby
> selene1022 <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Earth to Jan...Saddam's thugs cut the water.
>
> Earth to Selene:
> US thugs bombed electricity, water supply and sewage plants
Checkmate.
Mark Scruby
> "selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The Bush administration needs to do a better job getting it's act
> > together. Still, is anyone REALLY going to argue that Iraq is worse
> > off now?
>
> What does it mean to say that Iraq is "better off" now? What terms and
> timescale are we talking about? It's lost a brutal dictator. On the other
> hand, thousands of Iraqis are dead, the national infrastructure has been
> wrecked, and there's an absence of clear political authority except for that
> imposed by a foreign power with uncertain motives. This is a watershed in
> the country's history; post-war Iraq *may* turn out to be an inspiring
> success story, but on the other hand it could all get very ugly. If Iraq
> dissolves into a kind of Somalia in the next five years, will that have made
> it "better off"? This is far too complex and uncertain a question to answer
> so glibly.
>
> Alan.
Exactly. Was waiting 10 years and then flattening the place the only way to oust
Saddam and 'save' the people of Iraq. George, you're my hero.
bayle
news:<NkP8w1Hx...@ntlworld.com>...
> > In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>, selene1022
> > <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
> > >Reg Bentley <r...@EGGNSPAMbrethil.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > >news:<4FehoNA5...@ntlworld.com>...
> > >> In message <cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com>,
selene1022
> > >> <selen...@yahoo.com> writes
> > >> >
>
>
> > The world is not black and white, it is grey, and thats why I find that
> > yours and Bayle's "good vs evil" shtick makes me uncomfortble.
> >
> >
>
> Good.
>
> JV
I thought we were the ones saying it was grey. And you were the ones who saw
it in black and white. That is, Black (the US, the West, the military, the
police, Christians, etc) - White( everything else).
The point of Thatcher's quote by the way.
"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated
about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the
worst of those who defend it."
Thatcher's quote was a way off asking the old leftie question "Which Side
are You On?" Whether you like it or not, you are on my side. Because the
enemy can't tell the difference.
Did you see the Belgian reaction to the bombings in Morocco? They claimed
they were just collateral damage. The freedom fighters were only trying to
kill Jews. How could the terrorist bomb us, we gave them everything they
wanted? We did our best. We tried our best to stop the evil Americans from
harming Saddam. Now weren't the Belgians collateral damage in two previous
world wars? Of course they were.
So I ask you again. You asked why the Seventh Fleet isn't off the coast of
Indonesia (at least I think you did. You obviously know more about the
history of the situation. I just happen to be in the part of the world where
it is happening and trying to learn about it). Maybe it is? Should we send
it there? If so what do you want it to do? Airstrikes and cruise missile
attack on Indonesian military bases? Blockade of Jakarta? Arm the rebels?
All fine with me.
Last night, as the military moved in, the press reported that mediation is
unlikely. The Indonesians won't even let the UN flag fly at UNESCO sites,
they distrust them so much, so Koffi is out and the Australians, after East
Timor, are not welcome either.
Have we learned anything?
bayle
So silly. Suppose Australia had been invaded and conquered by the Japanese
and the US had to do to OZ what the US did to Iraq to liberate it. Would
Australia have been better off after the war? I think you know the answer.
And even better, would the average Australian have wanted the US to fight
the war? Damn right.
selene1022
Umm, hardly. Show me the money.
JV
selene1022
a) The place was not flattened.
b) Force was the only way to get rid of Saddam.
JV
Reg Bentley
<nob...@nowhere.com> writes
>
>"selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cfdb308.03051...@posting.google.com...
>> Reg Bentley <r...@EGGNSPAMbrethil.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:<NkP8w1Hx...@ntlworld.com>...
>> > The world is not black and white, it is grey, and thats why I find that
>> > yours and Bayle's "good vs evil" shtick makes me uncomfortble.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> JV
>
>I thought we were the ones saying it was grey.
"Axis of Evil" (Your Mate Bush 2002). Ring any bells?
Does that include Mordor, by the way?
> And you were the ones
> who saw
>it in black and white.
>That is, Black (the US, the West, the military, the
>police, Christians, etc) - White( everything else).
Nope, never said that.
I had doubts about the wisdom of an invasion, for lots of reasons.
The fact that your argument involves caricaturing me as someone who
thinks Saddam's one of the good guys, that sez it all.
Amnesty has been complaining about Saddam for decades, have Bushes jnr
or senior, has Rumsfeld, has Cheney?
>
>The point of Thatcher's quote by the way.
>
>"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated
>about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the
>worst of those who defend it."
Well, that's not what I "imagine" or "believe", nor is it true of any
of the other ordinary British people I know who doubted the reasons we
were given for going to war.
She's just talking shite on her crude nationalist xenophobic
scaremongering rap, with which the people of this country are all too
familiar. Its all bollocks, but what else would you expect from the
friend and admirer of a mass murderer and torturer, and someone who
openly despises any concern for human rights?
>
>Thatcher's quote was a way off asking the old leftie question "Which Side
>are You On?" Whether you like it or not, you are on my side. Because the
>enemy can't tell the difference.
Ah, you're a great one for your "sides".
Bush pulled out of the Kyoto agreement, the last real chance we have as
a species to work together to stop climate change, he opposed UN plans
to curb the huge trade in illegal small arms (responsible for the deaths
of 4 million women and children since 1990), and refused to support an
agreement to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. All
because they would apparently hurt the "interests" of the US, the
richest most powerful country the world has ever seen.
Is he on the side of a peasant in Niger whose losing his lands to
encroaching deserts, or a farmer in bangladesh whose land is underwater
due to rising sea levels and increases in typhoons and other such
extreme weather events?
Still, as long as his pals in the oil industry continue to rake in the
cash, and joe six pack gets cheap "gas", who cares?
>
>Did you see the Belgian reaction to the bombings in Morocco? They claimed
>they were just collateral damage. The freedom fighters were only trying to
>kill Jews. How could the terrorist bomb us, we gave them everything they
>wanted? We did our best. We tried our best to stop the evil Americans from
>harming Saddam.
>Now weren't the Belgians collateral damage in two previous
>world wars? Of course they were.
Eh?
>
>So I ask you again. You asked why the Seventh Fleet isn't off the coast of
>Indonesia
No. Point Noire is off the coast of Congo, where over 3 million
civilians have so far died
No sign of Rumsfeld and co.
>(at least I think you did. You obviously know more about the
>history of the situation. I just happen to be in the part of the world where
>it is happening and trying to learn about it). Maybe it is? Should we send
>it there? If so what do you want it to do? Airstrikes and cruise missile
>attack on Indonesian military bases? Blockade of Jakarta? Arm the rebels?
>All fine with me.
Is it really fine with you? You'd be willing to commit huge numbers of
US troops against one of the largest armies in the world, when you've
just said you don't know much about what's happening, or the history
behind it, just like that?
Hmm.
If I knew for sure what the best thing to do was in all these
situations, or probably more to the point *thought* I did, I'd be
foreign secretary, or you. The point I'm making is that the 7th fleet
isn't there, nor is it in the South Atlantic off the African coast, nor
will it be. The reason being that George Bush couldn't care less.
This is unshakeable evidence that the current US administration will not
act unless it believes vital strategic interests are involved, and that
human rights are not a factor. What other explanation can there be?
That's what states do i suppose, but lets not have any more of this
cobblers about George's concern for freedom and democracy around the
world.
Now, given that humanitarian concerns are nothing but a convenient fig
leaf, what happens if the US perceives that the overthrow of a more
democratic regime in some country or other, and its replacement with
something nastier, is in line with its future interests? Its happened
before.
>
>Last night, as the military moved in, the press reported that mediation is
>unlikely. The Indonesians won't even let the UN flag fly at UNESCO sites,
>they distrust them so much, so Koffi is out and the Australians, after East
>Timor, are not welcome either.
>
>Have we learned anything?
bayle
> >So I ask you again. You asked why the Seventh Fleet isn't off the coast
of
> >Indonesia
>
> No. Point Noire is off the coast of Congo, where over 3 million
> civilians have so far died
> No sign of Rumsfeld and co.
>
My mistake.
> >(at least I think you did. You obviously know more about the
> >history of the situation. I just happen to be in the part of the world
where
> >it is happening and trying to learn about it). Maybe it is? Should we
send
> >it there? If so what do you want it to do? Airstrikes and cruise missile
> >attack on Indonesian military bases? Blockade of Jakarta? Arm the rebels?
> >All fine with me.
>
> Is it really fine with you? You'd be willing to commit huge numbers of
> US troops against one of the largest armies in the world, when you've
> just said you don't know much about what's happening, or the history
> behind it, just like that?
> Hmm.
>
First of all I didn't mention large numbers of troops, you did. Secondly I'm
not afraid of the Indonesian military, no matter how big it is. Thirdly I do
know some history, specifically about the war in the pacific, which was a
war primarily of air and naval forces and supply, with land forces needed to
gain airfields. I'm guessing that the Japanese had more soldiers isolated
and starving at the end of WWII than are in the Indonesian military today.
But it would only be a guess. And you are assuming that the Indonesian
military would be more willing to fight against the US, than the Iraqis. A
doubtful propostition.
I asked what you think, since you and I might agree about most atrocities in
the world.
> If I knew for sure what the best thing to do was in all these
> situations, or probably more to the point *thought* I did, I'd be
> foreign secretary, or you. The point I'm making is that the 7th fleet
> isn't there, nor is it in the South Atlantic off the African coast, nor
> will it be.
So maybe we can make some progress here.
It seems to me the central question is over sovereignty. According to
internationalists if a dictator decides to murder his own people, and the UN
doesn't authorize action, no use of force is legitimate.
Apparently both Australia and the US have said that while they support the
Indonesians right to defend themselves against the insurgency, they ask them
to look for a peaceful solution.
Meanwhile, the press report that numerous schools were set afire yesterday.
What is your take on this? Should OZ (Australia) and the US demand that
Indonesia allow the creation of an independent state?
Maybe the Congo is similar. Isn't it a civil war? Are you saying this war
was created by outsiders? That is non-Africans?
John Rennie
snip.
>> >
> >Depends, really, on what your country means to you. Thatcher is by no
means
> >a "one nation" politician - the world and interests she protects are not
the
> >world the majority live in. Thatcher hates the vast majority of English
> >people and uses them only so far as it serves her class's agenda. She
makes
> >the deliberate mistake of equating a country with the hegemony which runs
> >it. Thatcher is a dangerous enemy of the UK and the West in general.
>
>
> Yeah, a friend of murderer and torturer Pinochet, who stopped wounded
> veterans from marching in the Falkands victory parade, lest they spoil
> the mood of celebration... Tells you everything you need to know about
> "Lady Thatcher". A dreadful, dreadful woman.
>
> Reg
I remember her quoting from St Francis on her first day in office -
something to the effect about bringing together warring parties and
then doing exactly the opposite. Her contempt for 'one nation'
policies were so obvious - I agree you can't please everybody
but to then only please one section of the population without
heed to the rest was the most divisive policy imaginable. I
don't really think she was that bright even if she had two degrees.
She was not the Iron Lady of fable when it came to controlling
her Nigel Lawson, her Chancellor responsible for 'shadowing'
the DM. I don't consider her to be 'dreadful' just
stupid.
selene1022
> "Alan Allport" <all...@sasdot.upenndot.edu> wrote in message
> news:ba63ou$804$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > "David Tomlin" <jet...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8576779.03051...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > Well, by definition I would guess that War and nasty side-effects go
> > > > hand and hand. The question is, were they worth it? I think anyone who
> > > > says they weren't should be made to live in a totalitarian state for a
> > > > month before they answer.
> > >
> > > are entitled to express an opinion?
> >
> > Perhaps anyone who says the war was worth it should be carpet-bombed for a
> > month before they answer ...
> >
> > Alan.
> >
>
> It didn't take that long did it?
No it didn't. And who got carpet bombed?
JV
Alan Allport
> No it didn't. And who got carpet bombed?
[Sigh] The point, if it needs to be dragged out kicking and screaming, was
that setting one-sided pre-conditions such as "I think anyone who says they
[didn't support the war] should be made to live in a totalitarian state for
a month before they answer" is grotesque and absurd.
Alan.
jmc
In any case, if Bush and his Masters get what they want, we'll all soon have
the chance to find out what living in such a state is like.
Gene Zitver
>In any case, if Bush and his Masters get what they want, we'll all soon have
>the chance to find out what living in such a state is like.
James, who are these Masters? Can you give me a list of names? I'd like to
investigate this.
Gene
jmc
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030521170031...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Aside from looking at who paid for the Republican Party's last election
campaign, you might like to type Bilderberg into your search engine as a way
of getting your investigation started.
Mark Scruby
Geez; didn't you ever watch The X-Files?
Gene Zitver
>> James, who are these Masters? Can you give me a list of names? I'd like to
>> investigate this.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>
>Aside from looking at who paid for the Republican Party's last election
>campaign, you might like to type Bilderberg into your search engine as a way
>of getting your investigation started.
OK I tried that. Now can you direct me to a web site *not* maintained by a
conspiracy-obsessed loon?
Gene
Mark Scruby
Come on, that argument about Bill Hicks being a Christian is pure gold!
selene1022
Whatever. And I'm wounded you don't remember my Appalachian granny's
favorite expression.
JV
selene1022
Remember the stuff about Bush knowing about 911 in advance? (wink, nod)
JV
David Tomlin
> Last night, as the military moved in, the press reported that mediation is
> unlikely. The Indonesians won't even let the UN flag fly at UNESCO sites,
> they distrust them so much, so Koffi is out and the Australians, after East
> Timor, are not welcome either.
> Have we learned anything?
'Fraid not. What's your point?
David Tomlin
> Maybe the Congo is similar. Isn't it a civil war? Are you saying this war
> was created by outsiders? That is non-Africans?
According to an article in _The Economist_, the war was created, or
at least promoted, by outsiders to the Congo. The governments of
Uganda and Rwanda tried to gain influence by arming different
factions and playing them off against each other. The latest round
began when Uganda withdrew some troops that had been keeping a
semblance of order.
The Congo government has no dog in the fight, for lack of a big
enough dog. There was a comical story about them sending some cops,
who sold their weapons to locals and took refuge in the U.N.
compound.
I wouldn't call it a civil war. It seems to be a tribal war between
people who don't care, and may not even know, that they are inside
something the rest of the world calls "Congo."
bayle
My point is I want to know what the left's answer to the problem in
Indonesia is. The UN? The military? Just ignore it?
Schools are burning. No one who knows who's doing it. Do you care?
bayle
I knew about the Ugandans and the Rwandans. Just wondered if their was a
non-African nation involved, since Reg asked about the 7th Fleet.
Again. What do people think should be done?
jmc
Thing is, Gene, Bilderberg actually exists and IS a conspiracy: its agenda
and influence on policy remains mysterious. So, those who take an interest
in it are always going to be labelled by you "conspiracy-obsessed loons".
There are articles from people like Will Hutton on it, tho'. Funny thing
is - the US government's obsession with the never-proven existence of al
Quaida makes them the most conspiracy-obsessed loons I can think of...
jmc
Even Bremner, Bird and Fortune implied that a few weeks ago - you talk about
it as if its hardly believed by anyone. In fact, even the CIA have virtually
admitted prior knowledge. Wake up.
Gene Zitver
>Thing is, Gene, Bilderberg actually exists and IS a conspiracy: its agenda
>and influence on policy remains mysterious. So, those who take an interest
>in it are always going to be labelled by you "conspiracy-obsessed loons".
>There are articles from people like Will Hutton on it, tho'. Funny thing
>is - the US government's obsession with the never-proven existence of al
>Quaida makes them the most conspiracy-obsessed loons I can think of...
I remember when conspiracy-obsessed loons were obsessed mostly with the
Trilateral Commission. Gosh, I miss those days...
James, I actually think there *are* legitimate questions to be asked about the
activities of outfits like the Bilderberg Group, and about the power and
influence of large corporations and banks generally. But to leap to conclusion
that they are the Masters of George Bush's soul, pushing him inexorably toward
the creation of a totalitarian state, is an excursion into fantasy. It only
reminds me of the episode of "The Simpsons" featuring a secret society called
The Stonecutters, the members of which sing this song:
"Who controls the British crown
Who keeps the metric system down
We do!
We do!
"Who leaves Atlantis off the maps
Who keeps the Martians under wraps
We do!
We do!
"Who holds back the electric car
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star
We do!
We do!
"Who robs the cave fish of their sight
Who rigs every Oscar night
We do!
We do!"
Gene
jmc
> jmc wrote
I realise, Gene, that prophecies of doom are easy to mock - I am sure anyone
who warned people about the Bolsheviks after the revolution or the Nazis
during the Weimar Republic were equally called Conspiracy theorists or the
equivalent. But the way in which Bush and the Republican neo-conservatives
(hand in hand with Blair & some other governements) are putting into action
a campaign of foreign interventionist, Imperialist policies hand-in-hand
with limiting democracy and accountability at home suggests to me that there
is a forceful agenda going on which could well mean the end to democracy as
we know it in the West.
I am not entirely suggesting that George Bush wants a totalitarian state
(the jury is out). I am suggesting that he wants a certain type of society
in the ownership of certain hands and that we may end up with a totalitarian
state on the way to him getting that. The liberal freedoms that people take
for granted in the West are being tested daily - how easy it has been for
both the US and UK governments to introduce imprisonment without trial & the
vast majority of the population could not care & many even think they are
right.
My suspicion is that a person such a yourself is at present incapable of
facing up to their historical situation. You go along with the notion that
everything will be alright because "how could I not be in a situation
wherein everything is alright? - Bad history happens to other people -
either abroad or in the past. It can't happen here." And you don't see that
it IS.
But you have the right at the moment to watch the Simpsons and mock anyone
who gives you a wake up call ("Please don't wake me, I'm only sleeping").
You savour your rights Gene!
David Tomlin
> "David Tomlin" wrote
> > "bayle" wrote
> > > Last night, as the military moved in, the press reported that mediation
> is
> > > unlikely. The Indonesians won't even let the UN flag fly at UNESCO
> sites,
> > > they distrust them so much, so Koffi is out and the Australians, after
> East
> > > Timor, are not welcome either.
> > > Have we learned anything?
> > 'Fraid not. What's your point?
> My point is I want to know what the left's answer to the problem in
> Indonesia is.
"The left" is usually divided on such issues.
I'd still like to know what lesson "we" should have learned.
> Schools are burning. No one who knows who's doing it. Do you care?
No. Thanks for asking.